Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[blue bird bus]

Ill give you all my address I ain't a dork. A scared american...I ain't that dork no sir. Need my phone number???? Come on dorks. Computer geeks. Geeks no life. Scared little rabbits. Like rob zombie said ruuuuunnnn rabbit run

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>

As to mimicking heterosexual sex, every aspect of homosexual sex can only do so.
Damn, my pussy lips are bleeding again!!!

Honey, we don't mimic heterosexual activity; we do it way better. You should be so lucky.

[AnnieSprinkle]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course homosexuals have reproduced silly girl! However, I said A 'homosexual couple' cannot procreate. The only option is that one of them utilizes a default opposite gender substitute. The result is a child who is deliberately destitute one natural parent and one parental gender for the sake of the homosexual couple. Criminally atrocious narcissism.
You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong...
Did you really suggest that speaking of anything else as demeaning diminishes the issue of rape??? I won't say you are blonde, but my lip is bleeding right now...
If you think something I've said is unscientific, simply post a rebuttal from a legitimate source. It is easy for anyone to do but blondes...
Heads up honey, not just some humans limit mating behavior to sex, but ALL animals do too. The constraint of marriage is not just to address the likely consequence of children, but to mark the vow of monogamy and the pursuit of sexual union that embraces body, mind and spirit. Something a vast number consider sacred. Something that distinguishes human sex from animals.
As to mimicking heterosexual sex, every aspect of homosexual sex can only do so. They are absent the natural opposite partner. At every level, the complementary half is missing.
Damn, my lip is bleeding again!!!
Smile.

"You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong..."

I have no earthly idea where the fuck this came from. When did I ever say I had never had anal sex, or get offended, or any of that at all? Since you are incapable of carrying on intelligent discourse, I am disengaging from this conversation. Seek psychosexual therapy ASAP. I can recommend some resources for you to work out your cisgender projecting.

[ILmILF]

You should all be ashamed of yourselves ..!.;

[KiMare]

AnnieSprinkle wrote:

<quoted text>
"You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong..."
I have no earthly idea where the fuck this came from. When did I ever say I had never had anal sex, or get offended, or any of that at all? Since you are incapable of carrying on intelligent discourse, I am disengaging from this conversation. Seek psychosexual therapy ASAP. I can recommend some resources for you to work out your cisgender projecting.

I'd say you are just tucking your tail and running, but there is no way to tuck that tail...

Bye.

[Not Yet Equal]

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

[come on]

Tuck tuck tuck.

[DNF]

Obscured by the fact that the Obama Administration submitted a brief against Prop 8 is the brief the American Sociological Association submitted.…ASA’s brief destroys claims made that same-sex households are inferior when it comes to raising children, which is a major argument for those pushing Prop 8. The ASA especially calls out the Mark Regnerus study, which is the recent controversial study claiming children raised in same-sex households suffer adverse efffects. Supporters of Prop 8 made this study a huge part of their arguments in spite of fact that it has been discredited.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

[DNF]

ASA said the following about the Regnerus study in its brief (pgs. 26-29):
First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any time had “a same-sex romantic relationship.”. As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite- sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.
Second, when the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison... Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Third, Regnerus’s first published analysis of his research data failed to consider whether the children lived with, or were raised by, the parent who was, at some point, apparently involved in “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” and that same-sex partner. Instead, Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. As a result, so long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.
Fourth, in contrast to every other study on same-sex parenting, Regnerus identified parents who had purportedly engaged in a same-sex romantic relationship based solely on the child’s own retrospective report of the parent’s romantic relationships, made once the child was an adult. This unusual measurement strategy ignored the fact that the child may have limited and inaccurate recollections of the parents’ distant romantic past.
Finally, the study fails to account for the fact that the negative outcomes may have been caused by other childhood events or events later in the individual’s adult life, particularly given that the vast majority (thirty-seven of forty) of the outcomes measured were adult and not childhood outcomes. Factors other than same-sex parenting are likely to explain these negative outcomes in the Regnerus study. Regnerus himself concludes that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.”
In sum, by conflating (1) children raised by same-sex parents with (2) individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes.”

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

[lil jon]

Suzy has a mom and dad for parents. I explained to her "it is not normal to live that way".
I love my daddies.

[KiMare]

DNF wrote:

Obscured by the fact that the Obama Administration submitted a brief against Prop 8 is the brief the American Sociological Association submitted.…ASA’s brief destroys claims made that same-sex households are inferior when it comes to raising children, which is a major argument for those pushing Prop 8. The ASA especially calls out the Mark Regnerus study, which is the recent controversial study claiming children raised in same-sex households suffer adverse efffects. Supporters of Prop 8 made this study a huge part of their arguments in spite of fact that it has been discredited.
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

The Regnerus study has been vindicated of all charges by a peer review board.

Prop 8 occurred before the Regnerus study was completed.

You lie.

Smile.

[KiMare]

DNF wrote:

ASA said the following about the Regnerus study in its brief (pgs. 26-29):
First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead exa...ents.
Second, when the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison... Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Third, Regnerus’s first published analysis of his research data failed to consider whether the children lived with, or were raised by, the parent who was, at some point, apparently involved in “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” and that same-sex partner. Instead, Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. As a result, so long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.
Fourth, in contrast to every other study on same-sex parenting, Regnerus identified parents who had purportedly engaged in a same-sex romantic relationship based solely on the child’s own retrospective report of the parent’s romantic relationships, made once the child was an adult. This unusual measurement strategy ignored the fact that the child may have limited and inaccurate recollections of the parents’ distant romantic past.
Finally, the study fails to account for the fact that the negative outcomes may have been caused by other childhood events or events later in the individual’s adult life, particularly given that the vast majority (thirty-seven of forty) of the outcomes measured were adult and not childhood outcomes. Factors other than same-sex parenting are likely to explain these negative outcomes in the Regnerus study. Regnerus himself concludes that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.”
In sum, by conflating (1) children raised by same-sex parents with (2) individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes.”
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

-SS parents cannot have biological children.

-Most children in gay homes are the result of failed heterosexual relationships.

-There were seven family types studied, including gay. All were under the same study parameters. It is the first long term study of family settings. You seem to be requiring special treatment for gay couples.

Man up!

Smile.

[KiMare]

First, we are not 'brothers' spiritually or naturally.

Now to your replies;

1. If you believe denying marriage to a relationship will prevent love

rK; Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.
... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.

KiMare'a; Love is the foundation of ANY healthy social relationship. The distinction of marriage does not prevent love in any other relationship.

Your assertion that duplicate genders qualify for marriage is not based on any logical fact.

Moreover, I clearly state that at it's 'fundamental' essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, it is not the 'only stipulation'. The very list you are responding to exposes your deceitful attempt to restrict my view of marriage.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

First, we are not 'brothers' spiritually or naturally.
Now to your replies;
1. If you believe denying marriage to a relationship will prevent love
rK; Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.
... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.
KiMare'a; Love is the foundation of ANY healthy social relationship. The distinction of marriage does not prevent love in any other relationship.
Your assertion that duplicate genders qualify for marriage is not based on any logical fact.
Moreover, I clearly state that at it's 'fundamental' essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, it is not the 'only stipulation'. The very list you are responding to exposes your deceitful attempt to restrict my view of marriage.

...at it is 'fundamental essence'....

Nice try, Hunty.

Further, your view of marriage is merely your opinion. While there are certainly others who share your "view", you are in the minority at this point.

[gokkod]

youtube.com/watch... ……
Doesnt matter the Military allows Gays,,vote doesnt matter it approved
any way

[Steve]

it's just like Illinois, we don't need to worry about 3,000,000,000 dollar debt we have. instead let's put our focus towards who Sleeps with who.

[all8up]

bad idea wrote:

<quoted text>
Join the blacks, they blame other people for their dissatisfaction in life as well. "Everyone just wants things to be fair." Well, reality check, life isn't fair. Also, think about it like this. How will civilization continue to exist with there becoming more and more gays? Last time I checked, a dude can't get another dude pregnant. Don't gay people, men in particular, have a drastically increased risk of aids? Yes they do. Isn't that expensive to treat? Yes it is. Don't most people with aids not have health care? Well, yes. Who pays for their treatments then? The taxpayer. Oh, well its seems to me the american taxpayer should be up in arms because in a round about way, this will only cost them more. It's also un-natural for a child to be reared by gay's. That is already putting them behind the 8 ball to start their life. Kids are cruel, so why would you want to subject a kid to anymore cruelty? The list goes on and on as to why this is a bad idea. Just my opinion.

I don't know where you get your facts but they are incorrect! For starters gay men are not at the highest risk of contracting HIV / AIDS. Fact: The risk is higher in African Americans, specifically women. Fact: Civilization will continue because not all people are born gay. Fact: Taxpayers do not pay for people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS because grants from private and non private donors like Ryan White Foundation help pay for all of the medications that cost nearly $5000.00 a month. I could easily go on and on about your ridiculous claims but I will leave you with this instead, "The moment you think you know everything is the moment you know nothing". Do your best to remember that quote if you can! Oh yes and that is just my educated opinion...

[Quest]

lil jon wrote:

Suzy has a mom and dad for parents. I explained to her "it is not normal to live that way".
I love my daddies.

Then you have been very naughty.

Just because you have wonderful Daddies and you love them, it's not right to assume that other kids are "not normal" just because they are different, or their families are different.

You need to apologize when you see Suzy at school tomorrow.

[lil jon]

So being different IS normal?

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you have been very naughty.
Just because you have wonderful Daddies and you love them, it's not right to assume that other kids are "not normal" just because they are different, or their families are different.
You need to apologize when you see Suzy at school tomorrow.

[Andrew Singer]

the fact king wrote:

no you wetard 2 daddies wrong to good looking mommy's right just sayin

factless, let me clue you in on something: Gay marriage, civil unions, whatever, still does NOT mean you can marry your 10-year-old son, your cutest wiener dog OR your dead stinking mother under your single wide.

Hope that clears things up for ya, factless!

LOSER!! I WIN AGAIN!!!